Early in the nineties an article by Dana Gioia on the current state
of American poetry appeared in the Atlantic.  It was, as you would
expect of something written by an estabnik for a slickzine, almost
entirely uncontroversial and simple-minded.  Nonetheless, Gioia did
include a few sensible observations in it.  One concerned the rather
impoverished state of contemporary literary criticism, and how helpful
it would be for poetry if more good criticism were published.  Of course,
Gioia neglected to say what, exactly, good criticism is (except that it
ought not be exclusively positive).  Nor did he suggest how one might
persuade any periodical with a circulation of more than a few hundred
to carry it.

I have no ideas about the latter--just a vague dream that if we in the
otherstream can keep circulating superior criticism for the few long
enough, the mainstream will eventually have to take cognizance of it.
That would inevitably lead to a wider audience for poetry in general, and
for otherstream poetry in particular--to the benefit of all concerned.

As for what exactly good or superior literary criticism is I have more
than a few opinions.  One is that it must do more than merely list
a poem's subject matter and point of view, and affix a yea or nay to
them, which is the most that ninety percent of current "criticism" does.
It also ought to describe (and evaluate) any of its auditory and visual
effects that seem of consequence; point out its unconventionalities of
vocabulary and syntax if present; note its metaphorical adventurousness,
or lack thereof; reveal its structural qualities; and, finally, discuss
its pertinent allusional or connotational content.  The result would
be what I call a "pluraphrase," or a plural account of what's in the
poem rather than just a prose summary of what I call its "fore-burden."

As for yeas and nays, these should be affixed not to subject matter
or points of view but to specific concrete things a poem is doing,
or not doing.  And the critic should explain why a poem is deficient
or praiseworthy everywhere he puts such a marker.  Following Coleridge,
he should state whether the poem achieves what it seems to have tried
for AND whether, if it does, its achievement was worth trying for.  One
last point: the critic should back up what he says with quotations
from the poem he is treating--quotations as full as possible.  Exemplify,
exemplify, examplify!  In short, worthwhile literary criticism should
carry out all the standard "New Criticism" operations, however obsolete
the newer critics claim them to be.

But literary criticism should be entertaining, too--not only in style
but in range of topics.  There a would-be critic should ignore New
Criticism's alleged ban on gossip, one's own biography, and history;
he should risk irrelevance and have fun!  And he should not worry about
absolute thoroughness, which is impossible.  His main aim should be to
give a reader tools for an appreciation, not the appreciation itself--
though the latter might be necessary if the critic is dealing with a
particularly innovative poem.

In my own practice, I rarely am able to do all that I've just said a
critic should do.  But I do investigate more of a poem than its
subject-matter and point of view.  And I do try for as effective
a mix of entertainment and insight as I'm capable of.

---

Grumman's Weekly Commentary

---

Variably-Authored Essays

---

Go Back to the Comprepoetica Home Page.

---

.

.

.

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page